Despite the extra $170 cost, I'm leaning towards ram. Thanks for the
info.
Robert Trottmann
rotrottmann@davidson.edu
am14@chrysler.com wrote:
> Robert writes: >>Surely someone somewhere must have done a study of
> cowl vs. ram at some point?
>
> I haven't done a "study', but either will force air if located
> properly, and if the correct plumbing is installed with either hood,
> you will get "some" pressure (read ram). I doubt that either would
> amount to very much noticable increase except in the very rarest of
> conditions (read very high speeds @ WOT). If the scoop(s) are located
> properly on the hood and have sufficient opening they would "seem' to
> have an advantage due to the air not having to reverse to get into the
> Carb/throttlebody, but GM has succesfully used the high pressure area
> immediately in front of the windshield for cowl induction for several
> years, so I'm sure it works to some extent.
> I think personal taste take precedence here.
> I once had a '69 Mach 1 SCJ with shaker hood(ram) and I don't know if
> it helped at all or not, but I liked it. wish I still had it.
>
> So much for my babling.
>
> Azie
> Ardmore, Al.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:08:23 EDT